The argument to be analyzed is as follows:
The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.
“According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The advertisement director of the super screen movie company states that super screen should allocate a greater share of budget next year to reach the public through advertising based on certain assumptions. But the assumptions are not strong enough to bolster the conclusion of enhancing the budget for advertising.
Director argues that during the past year only fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies but fails to state the reason why only fewer people attended the movies?. May be majority of people are busy with their work schedule or did not like the trailer of the movie. Thus the argument of lack of advertisement does not strengthen the conclusion of fewer people attending the movies.
It is also stated that though only fewer people attended the movies the number of positive reviews about the movies increased as compared to last year.so It can be possible that after viewing the movie the viewers would have actually liked the movie. the people might have actually liked the movie more than the trailer. which means probably the content of the trailer or advertisement is inadequate to summarize the good qualities of the movie.
The author argues that there is lack of awareness among the people regarding the quality of the movie but fails to survey about it like how much percentage of people actually know about that particular movie and how much do not?. It might happen that most of the people are aware about the movie but didn't like the advertisement of the movie or content on which movie is based on.
Thus the advertisement director of the company makes an argument which sounds good in initial phase but fails to consider the situation if the budget for advertising is enhanced than the Super Screen Movie company would actually be benefited or not?. Because if they increase the budget on advertising and the quality of movies is not good, customers would actually not appreciate it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 276, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... did not like the trailer of the movie. Thus the argument of lack of advertisement d...
^^^^
Line 5, column 253, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...rs would have actually liked the movie. the people might have actually liked the mo...
^^^
Line 5, column 323, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Which
... liked the movie more than the trailer. which means probably the content of the trail...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 2, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...content on which movie is based on. Thus the advertisement director of the compa...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'thus']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.262390670554 0.25644967241 102% => OK
Verbs: 0.157434402332 0.15541462614 101% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0816326530612 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0553935860058 0.0520304965353 106% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0204081632653 0.0272364105082 75% => OK
Prepositions: 0.139941690962 0.125424944231 112% => OK
Participles: 0.0349854227405 0.0416121511921 84% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.53060326401 2.79052419416 91% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0204081632653 0.026700313972 76% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.134110787172 0.113004496875 119% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0204081632653 0.0255425247493 80% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0174927113703 0.0127820249294 137% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1941.0 2731.13054187 71% => OK
No of words: 323.0 446.07635468 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.0092879257 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.57801047555 93% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.356037151703 0.378187486979 94% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.232198142415 0.287650121315 81% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.170278637771 0.208842608468 82% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0897832817337 0.135150697306 66% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53060326401 2.79052419416 91% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 207.018472906 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.448916408669 0.469332199767 96% => OK
Word variations: 44.5050654542 52.1807786196 85% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 20.039408867 60% => OK
Sentence length: 26.9166666667 23.2022227129 116% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.1009024184 57.7814097925 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.75 141.986410481 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.9166666667 23.2022227129 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.75 0.724660767414 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 50.1364809082 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.875 1.8405768891 102% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.539732069898 0.441005458295 122% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.226305243567 0.135418324435 167% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0754353847241 0.0829849096947 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.776919567694 0.58762219726 132% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.0856247366067 0.147661913831 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.325005828641 0.193483328276 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0606259999201 0.0970749176394 62% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.52992447155 0.42659136922 124% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0832796209642 0.0774707102158 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.411578017608 0.312017818177 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0371404063113 0.0698173142475 53% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.